Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 12:12:55 AM

Quote from: lovesmayfamilis on November 14, 2020, 06:07:26 PM

But what worries me the most is something else. These accounts have applied to subscription companies that have limited recruitment. Thus, they could simply take the place of another, more honest person.
I decided for myself that a neutral tag with a warning is just appropriate. This will serve as a signal, at the discretion of the manager.

Exactly.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on November 14, 2020, 07:18:17 PM

[...] At least with the DT neg, that scuttles their chances of earning money here when they should be permabanned....but I don't do that anymore and it isn't the right way to use the trust system.

Neutral feedback in these sorts of instances doesn't really do much of anything except act as a placemarker for those who might forget that the account should have been banned. It isn't even worth the effort IMO, but to each his own.

Campaign managers can make their decisions based on a neutral rating just the same. Or they can decide to hire a person even with a negative rating. I think for this purpose (warning campaign managers) neutral or negative would have roughly the same effect, except negative is less appropriate for the general intent of the trust system.

let's leave cm out of this discussion. Could we!